I didn't see the Duke game. I assume he'll struggle against strength given his weight, but if he adds 10-15 pounds he'll probably be good in the NBA, since nobody will try to play him like a C. They'll have him as the free safety role messing up passing lanes, and picking up weakside rotation blocks.
It's a ceiling vs. projection thing. It's doubtful that he's a #1. But if everything possible fell into place, a guy with his size and length has a high ceiling. He's not an unskilled guy.
If you actually, truly, think that he has realistic DPOY upside, and projects to be an easy fit on multiple types of offenses, I think you can do it. Not speaking to the specific case of Holmgren, obv.
I think another part of it is... do you think any of the other guys are #1 options? If you look at Holmgren and see a #2 option with elite D... that's really valuable, plenty of #1 picks never reach that.
Would these teams still have drafted Simmons, Fultz and Ayton if they knew then what we know now? Personally I never draft Zion first as I’ve been talking about his red flags for years but Edwards certainly has all the #1 option skills he just needs to grow his game into them.
I think at the time they were drafted only Ayton was not seen as a possible #1 option, maybe Simmons too but I seem to recall people thinking he would grow his scoring game more. That being the case, I think both those examples prove my point - while the Suns don't exactly regret taking Ayton, you would probably go for Doncic in a redraft. And Simmons, well... yikes.
Sure, everyone would got for Doncic in a re-draft, but I don't think the Suns were looking for a #1 scoring option. They already had Booker, who was coming off a 26.6ppg/6.8apg season. Their leading rebounder the prior season was a 35 year old Tyson Chandler at 9.1rpg. He was followed by old friend, Greg Monroe at 8.5 and then Alex Len at 7.5. They also went and got Mikal Bridges via trade on draft day, and had taken Josh Jackson at #4 in the prior draft. They needed to go big, moreso than getting a scoring option, because I think they had to believe they had enough scoring options at the time.
Yeah I had many questions about Ayton as a #1 guy that year between his motor and stiffness. Of course, I was a Bagley guy so there’s that.
I agree they weren't looking for a #1. But I am saying they should have gone with the guy who had that possibility.
Holmgren surely is going to be an interesting watch this year and the WCC does have a handful of moderstely high quality teams in San Francisco, BYU, St Mary’s and Santa Clara. His growth from two weeks ago to March will be fun to see.
I think a combo of his thin frame and playing for a very good team with tons of offensive options, will lead to him being generally unimpressive to people just looking at stats and physical dominance.
A lot of people think/thought Mobley should have gone #1 and I doubt he is ever an alpha scorer in the NBA.
That’s probably why he didn’t go #1. It’s the Chris Bosh-syndrome of being the prototypical 2 without the offensive aggressiveness and shot creation of a true 1.
My point was... teams aren't particularly good at identifying potential #1 scorers, there is too much translation (other than maybe Luka who was playing high level overseas). Do I see a #1 scorer in Holmgren... no, but a team might, and they might be right, i mean we have a recent MVP who was so raw nobody projected him as a #1 scorer, on the other hand the NBA is littered with guys who were supposed to be #1 scorers and went high because of it, but aren't in the NBA. That's why I would guess most good GMs don't think things like "is he a #1 scorer" when looking at draft picks, they mostly look at "what do I think he can do in the NBA... and what is his most likely outcome range".
Yeah, but you’re not drafting Mobley to be an alpha scorer, you’re drafting him to be Young Kevin Garnett v2.0, a five positional defender that can still produces 20/8/6 numbers. With three point range to boot.
Maybe he wanted to check out Murray against a top-flight defense. Iowa had played an awful schedule to that point.
As of today he's Boston's best bet of a third star. (Which isn't to say that I think he'll get there, but his physicals give him an actual shot.)
Sengun is worth keeping an eye on. The few times I've watched Houston he seems comfortable on the court.
The tools are nice, but we're still waiting to see the shooting/passing skills. Looking for those is why I'm typically lower on the Euroleague projects than you are....though I hope this becomes a time you are right.
Sengun’s skill level goes beyond advanced stats as his work as a rookie is helping produce wins. Kid is the real deal and the Rockets scored a nice one here.
I wouldn’t consider Begarin a pure Euroleague guy who is a complete unknown as he impressed last summer in a big way (to me anyway). I love the kids skillset as it is so translatable to the NBA. My skepticism on many of the hyped guys over there is the physical holes in their game that projects to hamper their growth at a higher athletic level.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement here, because the athleticism component is the thing that always gives me pause, as well. I mentioned after the draft last year that I was having trouble gauging Begarin’s athleticism because of the level of competition in Serie B (I had the same problem judging Jay Scrubb’s athleticism for a similar reason, he was playing JuCo ball). Now once I saw Begarin in summer league all doubts passed. And he’s certainly continuing to show that athleticism in Serie A which is a big step up.
You have admirable passion for watching Euroleague and college and I appreciate you sharing your perspective on those…many of us don’t have the time to watch all that. But you also have to be realistic about your track record, which most certainly is NOT that you are one of the bigger euro skeptics around here.
really?
Favoring guys like Bagley and Dunn is what I’m getting at. It’s not just Euros—though there’s been Euro binkies along the way consistent with this.
Physical skills, measurements and body development are among the most crucial factors in projecting a young players future. That doesn’t mean they all pan out and everyone’s past can be dug up to point out misses.
Your original point was that I wasn’t skeptical enough about European players. It’s usually the opposite that’s true, I am overly skeptical about them, or was until the last few years when we began getting better video, which has allowed me to get a better handle on them.
We have different recollections of many of your past assessments, then. So be it; as I said, even with the inconsistencies I appreciate your passion and the time you put in.
That’s true, I hated him at #3. As did almost everyone here. On the other hand I was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon.
The G League is pretty awful. I don’t think it’s any better than the French A league.
The G league is definitely ugly basketball but it's still one of the best leagues in the world talent wise.
I liked him and Murray at 3. Feeling pretty good about that POV. Found the Bender love funny. Still do.
I was a Murray guy, but supported the theory of Brown. I agree on Bender---he is the profile I'm pointing out can get overvalued, where it is all about projection and tools. I fully get that to be a superstar you need those tools but we can fall in love with projection without performance and for every Giannis where it pans out there is a lot of Benders where it doesn't. Drafting is tough and none of these are talismanic...Brown was a great projection by Celts.
Brown and Tatum were great picks. Easy to say "yeah, but they're #3 picks", but fucking them up is easy enough to do (and catastrophic).
